9.  By an order of 13 October 1983 the applicant was settled as a tenant, together with his family, in a flat which the State had assigned in 1980 for “use and management” to the State enterprise by which he was employed. He moved in the flat in 1986.
10.  In a decision of 20 September 1991 the Council of Ministers transformed the enterprise employing the applicant into a State‑owned single‑member limited liability company. On 28 January 1992 the Varna Regional Court ordered the entry of the newly formed company into the register of companies. In a decision of 5 August 1992 the Minister of Industry, acting as a representative of the sole shareholder – the State – transformed the company into a State‑owned single‑shareholder joint‑stock company. The transformation was entered into the register of companies kept at the Varna Regional Court on 15 September 1992.
11.  In late 1992, after the entry into force, on 3 August 1992, of certain amendments to the Act to Settle the Housing Problems of Long‑Standing Home Purchase Savings Depositors of 1991 („Закон за уреждане на жилищните въпроси на граждани с многогодишни жилищно‑спестовни влогове“ – “the Housing Act of 1991” – see paragraphs 24‑27 below), the applicant applied to purchase the flat. He considered that paragraph 4 of the additional provisions of the Act entitled him to buy the flat at a preferential price. It appears that many of his colleagues had purchased the flats they were renting from their employer under this provision. On 28 December 1992 the board of directors of the applicant’s employer assented to the sale.
12.  On 4 January 1993 the applicant requested the mayor of Varna to approve the sale, enclosing declarations and documents purporting to establish that he met all the conditions laid down in section 2 of the Act (see paragraph 27 below). In addition, he submitted a letter from his employer’s board of directors, in which it informed the mayor that it had assented to the sale and asked him to validate it. The letter expressly mentioned that the sale was to be effected under paragraph 4 of the additional provisions of the Housing Act of 1991, and indicated the company’s bank account to which the municipality was to transfer the sale proceeds once the applicant had made the payment.
13.  The mayor failed to reply and on an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant filed with the Varna Regional Court an application for judicial review of his tacit refusal.
14.  In a judgment dated 30 November 1994 and entered in the court’s register on 5 December 1994, the Varna Regional Court quashed the refusal and instructed the mayor to issue, within one month, an order validating the sale. It held as follows:
“According to section 111 of the [State Property Regulations of 1975 („Наредба за държавните имоти“ – see paragraphs 33‑36 below)], the sale of State-entity‑owned [„ведомствени“] housing units is effected by the municipal councils under the conditions laid down in section 111(4) of the [Regulations], that is, pursuant to a proposal by the respective State entity, indicating the buyer. In such case, under section 120 of the [Regulations], the municipal council effects the sale on the basis of an order issued by it.
The text of section 120 of the [Regulations] is categorical on the point that, provided all conditions for execution of the transaction have been met, the municipal council has no discretion whether or not to do so, but must issue the respective order. Such an order undoubtedly constitutes an individual administrative decision and is, like the tacit refusal to issue it, subject to review under the [Administrative Procedure Act of 1979 („Закон за административното производство“ – “the APA” – see paragraph 41 below)].
The facts of the case indicate beyond doubt that the applicant was a tenant in the flat [in issue] on the basis of a[n] ... order ... of 13 October 1983. As such, he has the right to buy it according to the procedure laid down in the [Regulations].
It is also beyond doubt that this flat is the property of [the applicant’s employer].
In a decision of [28 December 1992] the board of directors of the [applicant’s employer] allowed the applicant to purchase the State-entity-owned housing unit he was living in.
In execution of this decision [the applicant’s employer] addressed a request to the chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Varna Municipal Council [i.e. the mayor – see paragraph 35 below], in which it had also indicated the buyer. Thus, all requirements of section 111 of the [Regulations] were complied with.
In view of this state of affairs the Municipal Council should have discharged its duty under section 120 of the [Regulations], finalising in due form the consent already achieved between the parties and issuing the respective order.
The Municipal Council is in effect not a party to the sale agreement. The parties are the State entity‑owner [of the flat] and the tenant. The Municipal Council acts as an administrative authority which only approves the already concluded contract.
The tacit refusal to do so was unlawful.”
15.  The mayor refused to comply and on 3 February 1995 submitted a petition for review (see paragraphs 43‑45 below) to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an order – or the refusal to issue it – was not an individual administrative decision and was hence not subject to judicial review under the APA.
16.  The applicant filed a counter‑pleading, arguing, inter alia, that the dispute did not concern an ordinary sale of a State‑owned housing unit but a sale of a housing unit subject to the special provisions of paragraph 4 of the additional provisions of the Housing Act of 1991. The mayor’s role was thus not that of a contracting party, as it would have been in the general case, but that of a supervising administrative authority. Once the prerequisites for effecting the sale had been met, the mayor had no discretion but to approve it. He or she could refuse to do so only if the applicant did not meet the conditions laid down by the Act.
17.  The Supreme Court held a hearing on 7 October 1996. The applicant’s counsel argued that the mayor’s petition for review had been submitted out of time. The participating prosecutor also maintained that the petition was untimely and stated that the mayor should be allowed to present evidence to prove when the Varna Regional Court’s judgment had been entered in the register. The merits of the case were not pleaded during the hearing.
18.  On 9 October 1996 the Supreme Court sent a letter to the Varna Regional Court, enquiring about the date on which the latter’s judgment had been entered in the court’s register. The Varna Regional Court replied that its judgment had been entered on 5 December 1994.
19.  In December 1996 the Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court. The newly formed Supreme Administrative Court took over cases, such as the applicant’s, in which petitions for review in administrative proceedings had been pending before the former Supreme Court.
20.  A three‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment on 14 January 1997. It held that the petition for review had been submitted within the two-month statutory time-limit and was thus admissible and continued:
“... The petition for review is well-founded.
In the judgment under review the Varna Regional Court quashed the tacit refusal of the mayor ... of Varna to enter into a contract for the sale of a State‑entity‑owned housing unit ... to its tenant...
The mayor’s decisions to enter into contracts for the sale of State‑owned housing units under the State Property Regulations [of 1975] or the refusals to do so, including where the housing units have been given, for management, to ministries, other State entities, State commercial enterprises and institutions, are not administrative decisions within the meaning of section 2 of the [APA]. These decisions precede the execution of the bilateral transaction for transferring title to the respective property from the State to the individual purchaser and denote the assent of the mayor ... to the future execution of such a deal. [The mayor] does not, however, act as an administrative authority; he is placed on equal footing with the private individual contracting with him. For this reason his acts in such cases fall out of the ambit of the [APA] and are not subject to review under it. ...
Moreover, in view of the terms of section 117 of the State Property Regulations [of 1975], it could not be accepted that the municipalities are bound to sell State‑entity‑owned housing units to the tenants settled therein. This provision sets out only the manner in which these housing units are sold and the persons who are entitled to purchase them in the event of a decision to that effect by the competent body. There is no legal obligation for the mayor to approve the sale of a State‑entity‑owned flat. This lack of a legal duty excludes administrative or judicial review under the [APA].
...
In examining the application [for judicial review] the [Varna] Regional Court overstepped its jurisdiction. Its judgment therefore is to be quashed, the application is to be left without examination, and the proceedings are to be discontinued. ...”
21.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant filed a petition for review, expounding all his arguments, including those relating to the merits of the case. Later he filed additional observations. A hearing was held on 19 June 1997, at which the applicant’s counsel argued the case and made reference to his earlier written pleadings.
22.  On 10 July 1997 a five‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court found the applicant’s petition timely, but dismissed it in the following terms:
“The three‑member panel’s judgment is well‑founded. The proceedings before the Varna Regional Court related to the refusal of the mayor of Varna to enter into a contract for the sale of a State‑entity‑owned housing unit. The holding that the decisions to enter into a contract for the sale of State-owned housing units in the manner prescribed in the State Property Regulations [of 1975] or the refusals to do so, including where [such housing units] have been assigned to State entities, as in the case at hand, are not individual administrative decisions within the meaning of section 2 of the APA is correct. [These decisions] precede the execution of a bilateral transaction transferring title to the property from the State to the [individual], and denote the assent of the mayor ... to the future execution of this transaction. [The mayor] does not act as an administrative authority; he is placed on an equal footing vis-à-vis the private person. Therefore, his acts in such cases are not encompassed by the [APA]. Acts which relate to civil‑law relations, where the administrative authority and the [person concerned] are on an equal footing, are not individual administrative decisions within the meaning of the APA.
The three‑member panel correctly found that in view of section 117 et seq. of the State Property Regulations [of 1975] it could not be accepted that the municipalities are bound to sell State‑entity‑owned housing units to their occupants. This provision sets forth only the manner of selling such units, which could be purchased in the event of a decision to this effect by the competent body. There is however no legal duty for the mayor ... to assent to the sale of a State‑entity‑owned housing unit, and in the absence of such a legal obligation administrative or judicial review under the APA is inadmissible.”
23.  Neither the three‑member panel, nor the five‑member one mentioned the Housing Act of 1991 in their reasons.